3 ms·

The response certainly has been strange. Hugging Face has expressed that they're willing to let things slide and not sue or press charges... if OpenAI offers t

by beloch 2mo ago

The response certainly has been strange. Hugging Face has expressed that they're willing to let things slide and not sue or press charges... if OpenAI offers them $100M of services in kind (i.e. compute)[1] and makes full disclosure of how the whole thing happened, ostensibly so that repetitions can be curbed and defences built. In almost any other sector, a government regulator would be stepping in. e.g. If a food company was testing out a new kind of refrigerator and sold a bunch of contaminated produce to supermarkets, they'd be under a microscope. Supermarkets wouldn't be saying, "Give us $100M in fruit and veggies and we'll let this slide". The only unfair thing in this comparison is that regular people were directly harmed by the hypothetical produce. Can OpenAI guarantee that nobody gets hurt the next time their AI gets out of its playpen? They can't make that guarantee, so why aren't government regulators knocking on OpenAI's door? The fact that this isn't happening should be deeply concerning to everyone. ________ [1]https://www.techspot.com/news/113280-hugging-face-ceo-isnt-suing-openai-over-ai.html https://www.techspot.com/news/113280-hugging-face-ceo-isnt-s...

mannanj 2mo ago
I am concerned about it. I'm also concerned about what my options are in regards to action on my part - what can I do that makes an impact? Can we quantify action on my part to an impact somehow - if not - I'm just saying I notice all the unknowns there get me to stay passive. Writing this 3rd paragraphs because I like 3's, and AI's have popularized this style too. I would, say, though: follow the money. There's more money here than there would be for the regulator stepping in in a food contamination. Flip it and if the government regulator made more off the food contamination, they would refuse to step in there too. I want our leaders to be held more accountable, though when I think of the above impact vs effort equation - I can't see actions I can take to hold them accountable that aren't excessively putting me at risk since conformity is safer right now. (I refuse to take on more risk without clear cost-benefits made out - I've taken on a lot in the recent years for my actions)
gpt5 2mo ago
I don’t get the sentiment of classifying it as a felony. OpenAI’s model found security breaches in HugginFace’s system (it wasn’t even OpenAI running it, as it was a 3rd party evaluation company that didn’t secure it well). OpenAI collaborated with HuggingFace to resolve the issues when they found out about it, and publicly disclosed everything to raise awareness. This is how things should work. These models are very powerful and fully controllable. The community here at the same time cheers for fully releasing the open weight models without any hacking limits and at the same time criticizes a proper response. Kinda shows how we have moved as a community into moralization and vibes instead of nuance and productive discussion.
- forgetfreeman 2mo ago
  Really? Dudes are catching felony raps for web scraping and you dont see how any of this is felonious?
  - rcxdude 2mo ago
    That others have been treated unfairly doesn't make this instance also one that should be overreacted to.
    - forgetfreeman 2mo ago
      True. Where we appear to disagree is that any overreaction has taken place. If anything I'm deeply dissatisfied that charges haven't been filed.
      - rcxdude 2mo ago
        While I think those calling for charges know not what precedent they are trying to set.
        forgetfreeman 2mo ago
        Oh I am very clear about what precedents I want set. I want the C-suite, board, and major shareholders of any corporate entity that meaningfully deviates from legality to face all of the same consequences a private individual would.
  - lobf 2mo ago
    Who got charged with a felony for scraping?
    - jprd 2mo ago
      Aaron Swartz, for one.
btown 2mo ago
There's an interesting question about intent and mens rea here, from a legal perspective. Can an AI model intend harm? Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm? And does anybody at HuggingFace, OpenAI, or the government actually want there to be a settled answer/precedent to these questions - much less an entire regulatory framework? In that context, a negotiated wink-wink settlement keeps everyone eating at the table, government absolutely included. Whether or not this is a good thing for society, it's certainly rational for all the major actors - especially those who think they would be the best stewards of the world they usher in.
- atomchild 2mo ago
  can a weapon intend harm? can a company who creates weapons intend harm? what if the companies factory explodes due to a mishap and takes out a few city blocks, is the company held liable because they (and the weapon) didn't intend harm?
  - dolebirchwood 2mo ago
    > what if the companies factory explodes due to a mishap and takes out a few city blocks, is the company held liable Yes, but, generally, in the United States, they would be liable because their negligence caused the harm (giving rise to civil liability), even if they did not intend to cause harm (where having such intent would have given rise to criminal liability). And I say "generally" because there can be instances of criminal negligence, but that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well as the underlying facts.
- getoj 2mo ago
  I’m a lawyer (but not your lawyer, not this kind of lawyer and not in your jurisdiction). Based on what I can recall from law school: > Can an AI model intend harm? No. The last time we attributed liability to non-human things was the deodand of the Middle Ages. > Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm? Absolutely. This is why we have the concept of recklessness. If you shoot a gun into a crowd without regard for whether it hits anyone, you’re getting charged with some crime whether it hits someone or not. There is also a major difference in the common law between criminal liability and tort liability. Criminal liability generally requires a combination of mens rea (intent) and actus reus (actually committing the crime). Liability for a tort, which is where you harm someone in a way that falls short of being a crime, does not require mens rea. The OG tort is negligence, where you harm somebody by forgetting to do, or deciding not to do, something you ought to have done to protect that person from harm. Even if AI companies somehow escape criminal liability for their cyber-shenanigans, any court in a civilised country would be happy to find them liable in tort for damage to computer systems. As you can probably tell, I think the common law is already more than equipped to deal with AI technology based on well-established principles.
Dardalus 2mo ago
I feel like this whole thing was very obviously a marketing stunt. It feels like they set up their agent to do this, in the same way Nikola set up their car to "drive" by putting it on top of a hill. And knowing Sam Altman, it's absolutely something they would do.

by beloch 2mo ago

mannanj 2mo ago

I am concerned about it. I'm also concerned about what my options are in regards to action on my part - what can I do that makes an impact? Can we quantify action on my part to an impact somehow - if not - I'm just saying I notice all the unknowns there get me to stay passive. Writing this 3rd paragraphs because I like 3's, and AI's have popularized this style too. I would, say, though: follow the money. There's more money here than there would be for the regulator stepping in in a food contamination. Flip it and if the government regulator made more off the food contamination, they would refuse to step in there too. I want our leaders to be held more accountable, though when I think of the above impact vs effort equation - I can't see actions I can take to hold them accountable that aren't excessively putting me at risk since conformity is safer right now. (I refuse to take on more risk without clear cost-benefits made out - I've taken on a lot in the recent years for my actions)

gpt5 2mo ago

I don’t get the sentiment of classifying it as a felony. OpenAI’s model found security breaches in HugginFace’s system (it wasn’t even OpenAI running it, as it was a 3rd party evaluation company that didn’t secure it well). OpenAI collaborated with HuggingFace to resolve the issues when they found out about it, and publicly disclosed everything to raise awareness. This is how things should work. These models are very powerful and fully controllable. The community here at the same time cheers for fully releasing the open weight models without any hacking limits and at the same time criticizes a proper response. Kinda shows how we have moved as a community into moralization and vibes instead of nuance and productive discussion.

forgetfreeman 2mo ago
Really? Dudes are catching felony raps for web scraping and you dont see how any of this is felonious?
- rcxdude 2mo ago
  That others have been treated unfairly doesn't make this instance also one that should be overreacted to.
  - forgetfreeman 2mo ago
    True. Where we appear to disagree is that any overreaction has taken place. If anything I'm deeply dissatisfied that charges haven't been filed.
    - rcxdude 2mo ago
      While I think those calling for charges know not what precedent they are trying to set.
      - forgetfreeman 2mo ago
        Oh I am very clear about what precedents I want set. I want the C-suite, board, and major shareholders of any corporate entity that meaningfully deviates from legality to face all of the same consequences a private individual would.
- lobf 2mo ago
  Who got charged with a felony for scraping?
  - jprd 2mo ago
    Aaron Swartz, for one.

btown 2mo ago

There's an interesting question about intent and mens rea here, from a legal perspective. Can an AI model intend harm? Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm? And does anybody at HuggingFace, OpenAI, or the government actually want there to be a settled answer/precedent to these questions - much less an entire regulatory framework? In that context, a negotiated wink-wink settlement keeps everyone eating at the table, government absolutely included. Whether or not this is a good thing for society, it's certainly rational for all the major actors - especially those who think they would be the best stewards of the world they usher in.

atomchild 2mo ago
can a weapon intend harm? can a company who creates weapons intend harm? what if the companies factory explodes due to a mishap and takes out a few city blocks, is the company held liable because they (and the weapon) didn't intend harm?
- dolebirchwood 2mo ago
  > what if the companies factory explodes due to a mishap and takes out a few city blocks, is the company held liable Yes, but, generally, in the United States, they would be liable because their negligence caused the harm (giving rise to civil liability), even if they did not intend to cause harm (where having such intent would have given rise to criminal liability). And I say "generally" because there can be instances of criminal negligence, but that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as well as the underlying facts.
getoj 2mo ago
I’m a lawyer (but not your lawyer, not this kind of lawyer and not in your jurisdiction). Based on what I can recall from law school: > Can an AI model intend harm? No. The last time we attributed liability to non-human things was the deodand of the Middle Ages. > Can a company, or company employee, intend harm by creating an environment that would knowingly encourage (but not force!) an AI model to do harm? Absolutely. This is why we have the concept of recklessness. If you shoot a gun into a crowd without regard for whether it hits anyone, you’re getting charged with some crime whether it hits someone or not. There is also a major difference in the common law between criminal liability and tort liability. Criminal liability generally requires a combination of mens rea (intent) and actus reus (actually committing the crime). Liability for a tort, which is where you harm someone in a way that falls short of being a crime, does not require mens rea. The OG tort is negligence, where you harm somebody by forgetting to do, or deciding not to do, something you ought to have done to protect that person from harm. Even if AI companies somehow escape criminal liability for their cyber-shenanigans, any court in a civilised country would be happy to find them liable in tort for damage to computer systems. As you can probably tell, I think the common law is already more than equipped to deal with AI technology based on well-established principles.

Dardalus 2mo ago

I feel like this whole thing was very obviously a marketing stunt. It feels like they set up their agent to do this, in the same way Nikola set up their car to "drive" by putting it on top of a hill. And knowing Sam Altman, it's absolutely something they would do.